[homie12]

I keep having this question of the legitimacy of gravitational theory. It has generated so much theoretical confusion. The electric universe theory seems so much more obvious. Am I that much of a dullard?

[D H]

homie12, on 4 February 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I keep having this question of the legitimacy of gravitational theory. It has generated so much theoretical confusion. The electric universe theory seems so much more obvious. Am I that much of a dullard?

I'll leave your last question unanswered.

As far as the electric universe "theory" goes, it is nonsense. Galaxies orbit each other, stars orbit about the galaxies that host them and in some cases orbit one another, planets orbit stars, moons orbit planets. The only way this makes sense is if everything is attracted to everything else. The electric universe nonsense cannot explain this. Gravitation does.

[homie12]

D H, on 4 February 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

I'll leave your last question unanswered.

As far as the electric universe "theory" goes, it is nonsense. Galaxies orbit each other, stars orbit about the galaxies that host them and in some cases orbit one another, planets orbit stars, moons orbit planets. The only way this makes sense is if everything is attracted to everything else. The electric universe nonsense cannot explain this. Gravitation does.

you guys are funny . you just say ther word nonsense but dont specifically apply it. Hey blackholes and dark matter and dark energy are nonsense. Step away from the emporers new clothes phenomenon and you will see whats been pushed off on us as science fis laughable. And i dont need sarcasm to fluff my blogs thank you vert much

[hypervalent_iodine]

Topic split from basic gravity questions. Please keep the speculations in the speculation forum. It's what it's here for.

[ajb]

homie12, on 4 February 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I keep having this question of the legitimacy of gravitational theory. It has generated so much theoretical confusion.

You mean general relativity?

If so, yes general relativity has a reputation of being hard to learn and hard to interpret. I don't think I could ever completely disagree with that. To learn gravitational theory as you put it, one needs to understand differential geometry and a lot of its machinery. As an aside, I would claim that to understand physics one needs geometry, but we should discuss that separately.

The interpretation of general relativity, more specifically understanding the physics (if any!) of particular solutions is often tough. The core reason for this is that we are so used to rather simple space-times and coordinate systems; Minkowski space-time in natural inertial coordinates, which are essentially Cartesian. Minkowski space-time has lots of symmetries and this ties in with conservation laws. Symmetry and conservation laws are the foundation of physics. A general space-time may have no such symmetries at all and then the physics starts to become far less clear. In a given coordinate system there may be no obvious interpretation of the "directions" that fits with our rather "flat" intuition.

The physical interpretation of specific (lets say exact) solutions, from a local and global perspective is, in my opinion important. One would like to know what solutions are physics and what are pure mathematics. There are tools to aid us here like energy conditions, being time orientable and so on.

The book for exact solutions is [1].

References

[1] Stephani, H.; Kramer, D.; MacCallum, M.; Hoenselaers, C.; & Herlt, E. (2003). Exact Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-46136-7.

This post has been edited by ajb: 8 February 2012 - 09:26 AM

[rigney]

ajb, on 8 February 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

You mean general relativity?

If so, yes general relativity has a reputation of being hard to learn and hard to interpret. I don't think I could ever completely disagree with that. To learn gravitational theory as you put it, one needs to understand differential geometry and a lot of its machinery. As an aside, I would claim that to understand physics one needs geometry, but we should discuss that separately.

The interpretation of general relativity, more specifically understanding the physics (if any!) of particular solutions is often tough. The core reason for this is that we are so used to rather simple space-times and coordinate systems; Minkowski space-time in natural inertial coordinates, which are essentially Cartesian. Minkowski space-time has lots of symmetries and this ties in with conservation laws. Symmetry and conservation laws are the foundation of physics. A general space-time may have no such symmetries at all and then the physics starts to become far less clear. In a given coordinate system there may be no obvious interpretation of the "directions" that fits with our rather "flat" intuition.

The physical interpretation of specific (lets say exact) solutions, from a local and global perspective is, in my opinion important. One would like to know what solutions are physics and what are pure mathematics. There are tools to aid us here like energy conditions, being time orientable and so on.

The book for exact solutions is [1].

References

[1] Stephani, H.; Kramer, D.; MacCallum, M.; Hoenselaers, C.; & Herlt, E. (2003). Exact Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-46136-7.

This may be just another bit of crackpottery, but: Teslas' papers, which are still in conflict today; pretty much gave us answers to "Gravity" even back then. Like him I believe gravity is nothing more than static electricity continuously being generated and acting as magnetism, while matter moves through a contiguous universe at a constant speed.
http://www.netowne.c...logy/important/

This post has been edited by rigney: 8 February 2012 - 03:01 PM

[ajb]

rigney, on 8 February 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

This may be just another bit of crackpottery, but: Teslas' papers, which are still in conflict today; pretty much gave us answers to "Gravity" even back then.

I am not familiar with this work, but I know it was never published. It seems that Tesla's objections to general relativity are rather philosophical than any thing very concrete. Also, looking at the dates Tesla developed his theory before Einstein's general relativity.

I don't know the details here but the obvious question is does Tesla's theory agree with observations in the way that Einsteinian relativity does?

Tesla's gravity appears not to be a "hot topic" with gravitational physicists.

[homie12]

hypervalent_iodine, on 8 February 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

Topic split from basic gravity questions. Please keep the speculations in the speculation forum. It's what it's here for.

If 85% of the universe is dark energy and or dark matter then how do you explain the current model as being even legitmate.?The concept of blackhole is speculation and not even a good 1.

ajb, on 8 February 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I am not familiar with this work, but I know it was never published. It seems that Tesla's objections to general relativity are rather philosophical than any thing very concrete. Also, looking at the dates Tesla developed his theory before Einstein's general relativity.

I don't know the details here but the obvious question is does Tesla's theory agree with observations in the way that Einsteinian relativity does?

Tesla's gravity appears not to be a "hot topic" with gravitational physicists.

yes and thank you for this point. So why hasnt teslas work become more accepted? This very topic potentially could answer all of my questions.

[ajb]

homie12, on 8 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

If 85% of the universe is dark energy and or dark matter then how do you explain the current model as being even legitmate.?

This is a gap in our understanding of the lambda CDM model. This model is based on general relativity, but there are plenty of reasons why we think general relativity is a good model of gravity. For sure, we have no other theory that comes close.

homie12, on 8 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

The concept of blackhole is speculation and not even a good 1.

There is observational evidence that black holes exists, including studies of accretion disks and jets, x-ray binaries and the proper motion of stars near the centre of the Milky Way.

Basically, there are observed phenomena in astronomy that are due to the presence of heavy dense objects that can only really be black holes.

homie12, on 8 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

So why hasnt teslas work become more accepted? This very topic potentially could answer all of my questions.

Tesla never really completed his theory and so no proper account of it exists in a published form. No one has since been able to take his ideas and formulate a sensible theory that works. Tesla's work on gravity is considered to be useless and not worth trying to develop.

Tesla was also not a fan of special relativity and was trying to construct a Galilean version of electrodynamics. (Not to be confused with talking special limits in Maxwell's equations.)

So, Tesla may have been a great engineer and inventor, but he will never be remembered for theoretical physics.

However note that some big names in theoretical physics have also, later in life worked on theories that are just wrong or were never really completed. Two great examples are Einstein and Dirac. Einstein never really managed a geometric unification of electromagnetism and gravity that could lead to a quantum theory. Dirac later in his life worked on the idea that the fundamental constants, and in particular the gravitational constant evolve in time. This came from his large numbers hypothesis which is a fringe idea in cosmology.

[A Tripolation]

ajb, on 8 February 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

However note that some big names in theoretical physics have also, later in life worked on theories that are just wrong or were never really completed. Two great examples are Einstein and Dirac. Einstein never really managed a geometric unification of electromagnetism and gravity that could lead to a quantum theory. Dirac later in his life worked on the idea that the fundamental constants, and in particular the gravitational constant evolve in time. This came from his large numbers hypothesis which is a fringe idea in cosmology.

I'm glad you mentioned these examples, ajb. It seems that far too often we have people that think science has proclaimed people like Einstein to be gods without flaw. Hopefully this will get the point across about Tesla's ill-developed models.

[rigney]

ajb, on 8 February 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I am not familiar with this work, but I know it was never published. It seems that Tesla's objections to general relativity are rather philosophical than any thing very concrete. Also, looking at the dates Tesla developed his theory before Einstein's general relativity.

I don't know the details here but the obvious question is does Tesla's theory agree with observations in the way that Einsteinian relativity does?

Tesla's gravity appears not to be a "hot topic" with gravitational physicists.

I'm sure you're right, that it isn't a hot topic. But as I have said many times before, being neither a Physist or Scientist, I must give you guys the edge on all accounts, since I only have ideas as to what this universe is all about.
Tesla was a genius, if only in his own vernacular. But after being a working electrician for over 50 years, I understand where he was coming from.
quote: from his papers:::According to Tesla's lecture prepared for the Institute of Immigrant Welfare (May. 12, 1938), his "Dynamic Theory of Gravity" was one of two far reaching discoveries, which he "...worked out in all details", in the years 1893 and 1894. The 1938 lecture was less than five years before his death.
More complete statements concerning these discoveries can only be gleaned from scattered and sparse sources, because the papers of Tesla are concealed in government vaults for "national security" reasons. When I specifically asked for these papers at the "National Security Research Center" - now the "Robert J. Oppenheimer Research Center" - in 1979, I was denied access because they were classified, even though on that same day I discovered the plans for the hydrogen bomb on an open shelf, and told a Harvard graduate student about it later in the day at a Santa Fe restaurant. The guy went to Los Alamos, copied the plans, and wrote an expose at Harvard.
[

This post has been edited by rigney: 8 February 2012 - 05:26 PM

[ajb]

rigney, on 8 February 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Tesla was a genius...

Yes, he was a very accomplished inventor and engineer. He shaped the modern electronic light filled world we live in. No one wants to take that away from him. Just his ideas on theoretical physics are very dubious.

[rigney]

ajb, on 8 February 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Yes, he was a very accomplished inventor and engineer. He shaped the modern electronic light filled world we live in. No one wants to take that away from him. Just his ideas on theoretical physics are very dubious.

If this guy was a scatterbrain dealing in other venues concerning the universe, I wonder why our government has kept them so well isolated from the public, unless there is something there we shouldn't know? And I'm not speaking of little green men!

[D H]

ajb, on 8 February 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

However note that some big names in theoretical physics have also, later in life worked on theories that are just wrong or were never really completed. Two great examples are Einstein and Dirac. Einstein never really managed a geometric unification of electromagnetism and gravity that could lead to a quantum theory. Dirac later in his life worked on the idea that the fundamental constants, and in particular the gravitational constant evolve in time. This came from his large numbers hypothesis which is a fringe idea in cosmology.

You forgot Newton, who was arguably the smartest physicist of all times. He was also completely and utterly cracked.

I would venture that most good scientists have, and almost all the great ones had, more than a tinge of crackpottery to their thinking. We remember those great scientists for their good ideas. That they also had some completely cracked ideas, well, that goes with the territory.

rigney, on 8 February 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Tesla was a genius ...

Perhaps, perhaps not. The crackpot fanbois love Tesla for some reason. He does not rank up there with the crackpots those fanbois should be looking to such as Newton, Einstein, Dirac, ....

Quote

More complete statements ...

Those words are not yours. You should have given proper attribution. That said, the only places you'll find these words is at crackpot fanboi sites. Didn't your mama, or your wife, or your daughter tell you not to believe everything you read on the internet?

Those words are nonsense, of course. They sad thing is that there is no way to disprove them. There are no secret papers. That doesn't stop the conspiracy nuts.

[ajb]

D H, on 8 February 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

You forgot Newton, who was arguably the smartest physicist of all times. He was also completely and utterly cracked.

By today's standard Newton's work on alchemy, occult knowledge and the ancients would place him firmly in the crackpot bin.

D H, on 8 February 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

I would venture that most good scientists have, and almost all the great ones had, more than a tinge of crackpottery to their thinking. We remember those great scientists for their good ideas. That they also had some completely cracked ideas, well, that goes with the territory.

Schrödinger become interested in the notion of life and what is alive. He was influenced largely by Hindu philosophy. He wrote a book in 1944 that influenced the hunt for DNA. He was speculating on the molecular basis of genetics. Then he went on to propose a unitary consciousness pervading the universe in which everyone's consciousness is part of. Starting to sound a bit crackpottish?

I am sure I have been told of other examples of well established scientists going off on a tangent later in life.

[swansont]

The real question of crackpottery is not the questions you ask. It's how you ask them and what you do when presented with answers. I can't judge Newton's foray into alchemy because I don't know specifically what he did, but he didn't have access to knowledge to which I have access. One has to judge the inquiry in terms of what was known at the time. Alchemy is crackpottery now because we have knowledge of modern chemistry and physics. It wasn't necessarily crackpottery back in Newton's day.

[D H]

Newton's crackpottery was crackpottery back in Newton's day. He was cracked by the standards of his own time, particularly with regard to his fascination with the occult and his religious views.

[ajb]

swansont, on 8 February 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

One has to judge the inquiry in terms of what was known at the time.

Sure, I accept that point.

[DrRocket]

D H, on 4 February 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

I'll leave your last question unanswered.

As far as the electric universe "theory" goes, it is nonsense.

And that is nearly slanderous towards nonsense.

D H, on 8 February 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Newton's crackpottery was crackpottery back in Newton's day. He was cracked by the standards of his own time, particularly with regard to his fascination with the occult and his religious views.

We should all be so cracked.

[homie12]

swansont, on 8 February 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

The real question of crackpottery is not the questions you ask. It's how you ask them and what you do when presented with answers. I can't judge Newton's foray into alchemy because I don't know specifically what he did, but he didn't have access to knowledge to which I have access. One has to judge the inquiry in terms of what was known at the time. Alchemy is crackpottery now because we have knowledge of modern chemistry and physics. It wasn't necessarily crackpottery back in Newton's day.

Yes isnt that amazing of how we interpret the data and frame hypothesis, concurrent with our assumed view of nature at the present? Objectivity can be so difficult to discipline oneself into.

Believe it or not, i Get fatigued of argument. But I havent gotten my communicating skills developed enough to state some questions without it completely. and I know people get tired of appologies. So heres an attempt. If the universe is electrical in nature, then shouldnt there be some experimentation that shows that affect? we can breath in an atmosphere. So shouldnt we be able to tap the environment for electricity? I mean straight out of adjacent space? That why i question gravity. magnetic fields can cause an attraction similarly to the affects given to gravity. Heres why i feel this way. I tried a couple of those free energy experiments and i got voltage. Im going to try the next 1 I was wondering what experimentation do people in here do. I would like some new ideas.

rigney, on 8 February 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

If this guy was a scatterbrain dealing in other venues concerning the universe, I wonder why our government has kept them so well isolated from the public, unless there is something there we shouldn't know? And I'm not speaking of little green men!

So, have you tried experimentation along the lines of obtaining electricity out of the adjacent environment? I have had good results. Im waiting to chat with a mainstream electrician who has researched teslas work.